THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

56 taxmann.com 456 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Neha Builders (P) LTD. [2007] 164 Taxman 342 (Guj.) . 3. Radha Devi Dalmia Vs. CIT [1980] 4 taxman 183 (All.) 16. The Ld. CIT (A) after considering facts in totality deleted the addition made by the AO by following the order of its predecessor in the own case of the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. ANILKUMAR OCHHAVLAL DESAI, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Jurisdictional Assessing Officer?

u/s 143(2) of the Act, was issued on 17.08.2018 while the assessee. Sh Anikumar Oochhavlal Desai had already expired on 10.09.2016. The AO has, in his order, relied on the provisions of section 159 of the Act to hold that the assessment proceedings were valid. 5.4 It is noted that Section 159 addresses the liability of legal representatives

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment proceedings cannot be conducted on the basis of search conducted in case of third party more particularly when no details related to appellant are found therein. The ld CIT(A) ought to have treated notice u/s 148 as invalid as AO ought to have issued notice u/s 153C of the Act as proceedings have been initiated based upon documents

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment proceedings cannot be conducted on the basis of search conducted in case of third party more particularly when no details related to appellant are found therein. The ld CIT(A) ought to have treated notice u/s 148 as invalid as AO ought to have issued notice u/s 153C of the Act as proceedings have been initiated based upon documents

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment proceedings cannot be conducted on the basis of search conducted in case of third party more particularly when no details related to appellant are found therein. The ld CIT(A) ought to have treated notice u/s 148 as invalid as AO ought to have issued notice u/s 153C of the Act as proceedings have been initiated based upon documents

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby\nallowed

reassessment proceedings cannot be conducted on the basis of search\nconducted in case of third party more particularly when no details related to\nappellant are found therein. The ld CIT(A) ought to have treated notice u/s\n148 as invalid as AO ought to have issued notice u/s 153C of the Act as\nproceedings have been initiated based upon documents

THE ACIT,(OSD)CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. TORRENT POWER LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross-objection of the assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Amarjit Singh

56,00,942/- out of interest expenditure made by the Assessing Officer as per section 14A of the Act was not justified keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court as well as the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Ahmedabad and even no new facts or circumstances have been brought before us in order

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

56,495/- to Rs.17,47,300/- made by the AO on protective basis following the decision in the case of appellant’s husband Sri Bipinchandra Prabhudas Patel on account of undisclosed income from foreign bank account by not appreciating the facts involved in this case. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order the Ld. CIT(A) 12, Ahmedabad

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

56,495/- to Rs.17,47,300/- made by the AO on protective basis following the decision in the case of appellant’s husband Sri Bipinchandra Prabhudas Patel on account of undisclosed income from foreign bank account by not appreciating the facts involved in this case. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order the Ld. CIT(A) 12, Ahmedabad

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

56,495/- to Rs.17,47,300/- made by the AO on protective basis following the decision in the case of appellant’s husband Sri Bipinchandra Prabhudas Patel on account of undisclosed income from foreign bank account by not appreciating the facts involved in this case. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order the Ld. CIT(A) 12, Ahmedabad

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

56,495/- to Rs.17,47,300/- made by the AO on protective basis following the decision in the case of appellant’s husband Sri Bipinchandra Prabhudas Patel on account of undisclosed income from foreign bank account by not appreciating the facts involved in this case. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order the Ld. CIT(A) 12, Ahmedabad

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEHAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

56,495/- to Rs.17,47,300/- made by the AO on protective basis following the decision in the case of appellant’s husband Sri Bipinchandra Prabhudas Patel on account of undisclosed income from foreign bank account by not appreciating the facts involved in this case. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order the Ld. CIT(A) 12, Ahmedabad

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

56,495/- to Rs.17,47,300/- made by the AO on protective basis following the decision in the case of appellant’s husband Sri Bipinchandra Prabhudas Patel on account of undisclosed income from foreign bank account by not appreciating the facts involved in this case. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order the Ld. CIT(A) 12, Ahmedabad

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

56,495/- to Rs.17,47,300/- made by the AO on protective basis following the decision in the case of appellant’s husband Sri Bipinchandra Prabhudas Patel on account of undisclosed income from foreign bank account by not appreciating the facts involved in this case. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order the Ld. CIT(A) 12, Ahmedabad

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

56,495/- to Rs.17,47,300/- made by the AO on protective basis following the decision in the case of appellant’s husband Sri Bipinchandra Prabhudas Patel on account of undisclosed income from foreign bank account by not appreciating the facts involved in this case. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order the Ld. CIT(A) 12, Ahmedabad

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

56,495/- to Rs.17,47,300/- made by the AO on protective basis following the decision in the case of appellant’s husband Sri Bipinchandra Prabhudas Patel on account of undisclosed income from foreign bank account by not appreciating the facts involved in this case. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order the Ld. CIT(A) 12, Ahmedabad

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

56,495/- to Rs.17,47,300/- made by the AO on protective basis following the decision in the case of appellant’s husband Sri Bipinchandra Prabhudas Patel on account of undisclosed income from foreign bank account by not appreciating the facts involved in this case. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order the Ld. CIT(A) 12, Ahmedabad

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

56,495/- to Rs.17,47,300/- made by the AO on protective basis following the decision in the case of appellant’s husband Sri Bipinchandra Prabhudas Patel on account of undisclosed income from foreign bank account by not appreciating the facts involved in this case. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order the Ld. CIT(A) 12, Ahmedabad

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

56,495/- to Rs.17,47,300/- made by the AO on protective basis following the decision in the case of appellant’s husband Sri Bipinchandra Prabhudas Patel on account of undisclosed income from foreign bank account by not appreciating the facts involved in this case. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order the Ld. CIT(A) 12, Ahmedabad